Democrats trying to unseat each other III

[laughing dog]

JFK represented a relatively youthful energy who represented hope for a bright future, while Goldwater represented doom and gloom. More importantly, JFK was assassinated in the prime of his political career, while Goldwater lost and election, faded away and died of natural causes.

That's my point. Josh Mound claims that nobody could have beaten Nixon in 1972. I doubt that very much. I think it applies much more to 1964, first and foremost because the country was still in shock over JFK's assassination.

You mean like 'fauxgressives" and "Red Sonja"?

It is different when directed toward a particular poster vs. an abstract ideology or a prominent politician.

No, the tactic is identical.

BTW, equivocatingn of an insurrection against the US gov't with a riot allegedly inspired by #BLM is a common tactic of MAGA dupes, Republican partisans, white nationalists and bigots, so it is an understandable categorization regardless of its accuracy.

No equivocation here. The #BLM riots were much worse, especially in 2020. A number of people were killed (incl. an 8 year old girl in Atlanta) and billions of property damage were suffered both by government entities and the private sector. Additionally, territory was occupied for weeks in cities like Seattle or Atlanta, and for over a year in Minneapolis, as part of so-called "autonomous zones". The occupiers like Warlord Raz were never prosecuted for their insurrection though.

There is no need to justify your equivocation.

What are these "new punishing taxes"?

The new taxes on investment income mentioned upthread.

And those are "punishing" how?

Minnesotans voted to put the DFL in the majority in both chambers and in the governorship.

And Americans elected Republicans to majorities in Congress and Trump into presidency in 2016. By your "logic" you should not say anything about the Trump tax cuts then.
That's not how discussion fora work. I know Minnesotans elected Democrats. That does not mean we should not criticize those majorities when they do stupid stuff.

DFL candidates ran on platforms. There were no surprises to any voter who paid attention. I live in Mn. So, the majority of Mn voters generally got what they expected.

Did you not say nothing about Trump tax cuts? Or any of his other policies? Because Republicans ran on a platform too in 2016. Or are you being hypocritical as usual?

I live in Mn. You do not. I doubt you have any experience with the state of Mn or its population. Your posts indicate a real cluelessness about the life in Mn. That does not stop your obsession with life in Mn. There is a difference between criticizing a policy and saying what people want or deserve.

I live in the USA. I have experience in the USA. While you may disagree with my views, they are based on direct observations of life in the USA. Moreover, any federal policy may have a direct effect on my life unlike MN's policies on the people of GA.

 

[lpetrich]

Bill Clinton for President 1992 Campaign Brochure - a *lot* more than "end welfare as we know it", like "Bill Clinton will cut taxes for the middle class and make the rich pay their fair share." and "For more than a decade our government has been rigged in favor of the rich and special interests." and "Convert our defense-based economy to a peacetime one to ensure that the communities and workers who won the Cold War don't get left out in the cold."

He also promised a healthcare plan that will

Cover everybody.
Control costs, improve quality, expand preventive and long-term care.
Maintain consumers' choice of doctors.
Take on the insurance companies and the medical bureaucracy, and demand reform.

He failed.

The broken promises of Bill Clinton - July 11, 2003 - "The real record of the last Democrat in the White House"

BILL CLINTON was elected in 1992 on a platform of "putting people first." His campaign promised health care reform, gay rights legislation and an end to Republican threats to abortion rights, among many other things. Yet over the next eight years, Clinton left behind a trail of broken promises on all these issues.

 

[lpetrich]

Those broken promises:

ONE OF the most important issues in Clinton's 1992 campaign was health care reform. ...

But the Clinton administration frittered away this support. Its task force for writing reform legislation--chaired by Hillary Rodham Clinton--compromised again and again under pressure from the health care bosses. The resulting proposal was such a mess that Republicans were able to turn public support against it, and the Clinton "reform" plan died before even coming to a vote. By the time Clinton left office, there were at least 3 million more people uninsured in the U.S.

He wimped out on that one, and he did not propose any other big initiatives for the rest of his Presidency.

Then abortion, which was already the subject of a big culture war. He did a little bit, like vetoing a ban on "partial-birth abortion", but he did not do anything for legislation that would have codified Roe vs. Wade. "Anti-abortionists were able to chip away at the right to choose with one restriction after another--while the Clinton administration continuously gave ground ideologically."

About immigration, he promised rejection of Bush I's policy of turning back Haitian refugees. But when he got into office, he continued that policy.

As a candidate, Clinton also appealed for the votes of gays and lesbians by promising to overturn the ban on homosexuals in the military. As president, he agreed to the miserable "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which led to an increase in the number of men and women discharged for their sexuality. And to add insult to injury, Clinton signed the bigoted Defense of Marriage Act that outlawed same-sex marriages.

"Both Clinton and Al Gore claimed to be friends of the environment." Compared to climate deniers, they were certainly good. "But the Clinton-Gore record is anything but untarnished. For example, destructive logging in old-growth forests--suspended during Bush Sr.'s term--was resumed due to a loophole in an industry-environmentalist agreement supported by Clinton."

 

[lpetrich]

Then going into where Bill Clinton did more than break promises. "In important ways, he and his pals stole parts of the Republican agenda wholesale, smoothed out the rough edges and presented it as their own."

In 1994, the Republicans won both houses of Congress, from the economy going bad and from the failure of Clintoncare.

But he staged a comeback in time to win reelection in 1996--by publicly connecting with the outrage at House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Republican right, while quietly adopting large parts of their program as his own.

Thus, with a few months to go before the 1996 election, Clinton agreed to the Republicans welfare "reform" legislation--which tore up decades of government assistance to the poor.

...
Likewise, Clinton adopted right-wing law-and-order rhetoric to pass two "crime bills."

Then about Bill Clinton and the Bushes on foreign policy.

The truth is that Clinton represented the right wing of the Democratic Party. He was a hero of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the right-wing grouping that the party formed with the express purpose of shedding the Democrats' image of answering to "special interests," like labor, women's rights groups and racial minorities. Above all, the DLC was formed to make the Democratic Party's commitment to big business more explicit, and Clinton--who himself chaired the DLC from 1990-91, using it as a launching pad for his presidential campaign--carried this out.

 

[Derec]

What valuable skills do you suppose a ten year old child learns by scraping trays? Aside from humility/humiliation? I’m serious.

Work ethic, I would say.

 

[bilby]

What valuable skills do you suppose a ten year old child learns by scraping trays? Aside from humility/humiliation? I’m serious.

Work ethic, I would say.

That's not a valuable skill. It's questionable whether it's even a valuable philosophy.

Indeed, it's just the Marxist labour theory of value viewed from a slightly different perspective.

Hard work isn't a virtue, it's an indication that you (or more likely, your boss) is too stupid or too uncaring to find an easier way to achieve the same outcomes.

 

[Derec]

That's not a valuable skill. It's questionable whether it's even a valuable philosophy.

Of course it is. Had the kid's parents had any, they'd be able to pay for the rather modest cost of school lunches.

Indeed, it's just the Marxist labour theory of value viewed from a slightly different perspective.

I do not see how that is. I did not say anything about a theory of value, just that a healthy work ethic is a valuable thing to have. And if they do not learn that in their family of origin, what's the harm if the school imparts that on them?

Hard work isn't a virtue, it's an indication that you (or more likely, yourboss) is too stupid or too uncaring to find an easier way to achieve the same outcomes.

I did not advocate for a lack of efficiency. But even if you can do something efficiently, you still need to do it.

 

[laughing dog]

That's not a valuable skill. It's questionable whether it's even a valuable philosophy.

Of course it is. Had the kid's parents had any, they'd be able to pay for the rather modest cost of school lunches.

You have no effing clue what is going on those parent's lives. Your conclusion is a riff on the old moralistic meme that the poor and unfortunate are responsible for their situation. While some certainly are, some are not.

 

[Toni]

What valuable skills do you suppose a ten year old child learns by scraping trays? Aside from humility/humiliation? I’m serious.

Work ethic, I would say.

That's not a valuable skill. It's questionable whether it's even a valuable philosophy.

Indeed, it's just the Marxist labour theory of value viewed from a slightly different perspective.

Hard work isn't a virtue, it's an indication that you (or more likely, your boss) is too stupid or too uncaring to find an easier way to achieve the same outcomes.

I don’t agree that hard work/work ethic isn’t a virtue. It can be, just as the ability to streamline/simplify work can be a virtue. But ‘hard work’ or ‘efficiency’ can be the opposite and can cover up laziness, shoddiness, lack of attention to detail that is requisite in some work.

 

[Derec]

While completely agreeing with right-wingers on many issues -- and never acknowledging that agreement.

I agree with right-wingers on some things, but disagree on more.
I agree with left-wingers on some things, but disagree on more.
That's what being an independent moderate is.
If I was disagreeing with right-wingers on all issues I'd be a left-winger like you. Duh!
Now I do see why you have a somewhat skewed perspective here. This forum is largely to the left, and thus issues I end up debating with people usually have me on the right side of the issue. I normally do not comment where I agree with everyone; what's the point of just dittoing everything previously said?
Debating some other people they accuse me of being a left-winger. Can't please everyone I guess.

It's telling that Derec calls Sonia Sotomayor an insult that evokes (1) a female Conan-like character and (2) Communism.

I do not think using a moniker from a comic book character is insulting. Comic book Sonja is not some grotesque creature after all. And "red" applies to the left side of the political spectrum, not necessarily communism. She had been, until the arrival of KBJ, by far the most left-wing justice on the Court.

that the left-right chart of the Supremes that Derec himself inlined, she is only a little more left-wing than Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are right-wing, and I don't see Derec saying that she is as bad as CT or SA.

According to that chart, she is at almost +4L, while Thomas is at +3C and Alito just above +2C. So she is more of an outliar ideologically. Besides, Alito and especially Thomas have received a lot of attacks over the years. And "Red Sonja" is far less insulting than "Uncle Tom".

There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in Fox News.

I would think so. Although I very rarely watch Fox News.

Also, none of the BLM demonstrations directly threatened any seat of government. Even the rioters who joined them didn't do so; they were mainly content with looting and destroying property.

They did attack government buildings. Police precincts, courthouses, an ICE building in Atlanta. In addition to all the private sector buildings and other property they destroyed. In addition to the people they killed, including a retired police captain and an eight year old girl, both of them black. I guess only some #blackLivesMatter ...

Some activists declared autonomous zones for a while, but separatism != coups.

Different things, yes. Does not make those separatists ok. And yet they were not prosecuted, not even the insurrection leaders like Warlord Raz of Seattle Soviet Republic aka Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. Local and state officials let those zones persist for weeks, or in the case of the autonomous zone in Minneapolis, for over a year. That is not right.
I am not advocating that 1/6 rioters should not be prosecuted, but they got prosecuted very aggressively, while #BLMers get lenient treatment even when they (like Montez Lee) kill people in the process.
It is quite rich to suggest that putting one's feet up on Nancy Pelosi's office is a major crime, while vandalizing a police precinct is just protesting. Or that burning down a business and killing a man in the process deserves a lighter sentence because the federal prosecutor agrees with the arsonist's politics.

This attempt to minimize an attempted coup is what I see many right-wingers doing, including Republican Congresspeople.

Coup is an overused word here. While I am sure some in that crowd wanted a coup, most were just caught up in the fervor of the crowd. Doesn't excuse it, of course, but neither is #BLM violence excusable, and yet many on the Left are excusing it. Even to the point of claiming that the violence was committed as a false flag operation by right wing agitators like these:

And notably, 1/6 rioters did not set anything of fire, and caused a lot less damage, both to property and to human life. And yet they are being prosecuted far more aggressively than #BLM rioters and insurrectionists.

"under control" -- very revealing choice of words.

Deliberate too. Leadership of US unions has been historically very unsavory. Not just mafia ties like Jimmy Hoffa et al, but also involvement in far-left causes unrelated to labor issues. Example:
Painters Local 10 calls for freedom for Mumia
What does a radio journalist cum taxi driver cum cop killer have to do with a painters' union?

As if that is the US's only elected office. George Soros has contributed to a lot of candidates' campaigns, and I've seen some progressive grumble that he likes corporate Democrats too much.

It is not. But the young Soros specifically mentioned Trump. And "progressives" always grumble.

What a conspiracy theory.

Not a conspiracy theory. It is what is happening in Europe as we speak.

 

[bilby]

Had the kid's parents had any, they'd be able to pay for the rather modest cost of school lunches.

I was not aware that "work ethic" was a legal currency in young area. It's not here.

 

[bilby]

I did not say anything about a theory of value, just that a healthy work ethic is a valuable thing to have.

In what twisted reality is describing something as "a valuable thing to have" not "a theory of value"?!

 

[ZiprHead]

He paid $11G (billion) in 2021. Don't believe the propaganda that claims that billionaires pay no taxes. They are not part of the 47%.

When Musk wants cash, he can simply borrow money using his company’s stock as collateral. However, this practice has been criticized by some politicians as a tax loophole for the mega-rich.

Earlier this year, ProPublica published an investigation showing Musk and several other billionaires paid no federal income taxes in 2018.

Between 2014 and 2018, Musk paid $455 million in taxes on $1.52 billion of income, according to ProPublica, despite his wealth growing by $13.9 billion over that period.

According to Forbes, Musk is worth over $244 billion on paper, making him the world’s richest man.

Elon Musk says he will pay over $11 billion in taxes this year

Elon Musk faces a hefty tax bill this year — possibly the biggest in U.S. history.

www.cnbc.com

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

I would not know, as I am not one.

Laughable. Even Mitt Romney understands why BLM exists. If you are to the right of Mitt Romney on race, your claim to not be right-wing cannot be taken seriously. Your embrace of white victimhood puts you out in alt-right territory.

 

[lpetrich]

Opinion | How Long Can Hakeem Jeffries Keep His Democratic Cats Herded? - The New York Times - from Jan 17, 2023

Noting House Freedom Caucus: The right-wing nuts upending the House Speaker vote are right about one thing. - "Amid the insanity, the GOP defectors have identified a very real problem with the concentration of power in Congress."

In an Instagram stream Wednesday, Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made a similar point: “I’m not gonna lie, some of the points that are made—I mean a lot of them are bad, most of them are bad—but some of them, there is actually some common ground on. Like for example, democratizing the rules of the House and kind of breaking up that concentration of power that is so focused in a handful of leaders in both parties.”

...
Meanwhile, empowerment of committees in the legislative process, and a proposed opening up of the amendment process, would be advantageous for the left flank of the Democratic Party. Progressives make up almost half of the Democratic caucus, and the Progressive Caucus is the largest in the party. But progressives have long been shut out of leadership, and underrepresented on the most consequential committees, too.

AOC tried to get into the Ways and Means Committee in 2019, and into the Energy and Commerce Committee in 2021, without success, and she was kicked off of the Financial Services Committee this year rather than give up the Oversight Committee.

By comparison, MTG got into the Homeland Security Committee this year.

Back to the NYT.

Mr. Jeffries’s long-running hostility to the party’s left flank may soon be thrown into much sharper relief. Nancy Pelosi evolved from a die-hard liberal who once backed single-payer health care into a more calculating, center-left party leader. Mr. Jeffries will probably need to migrate left if he hopes to successfully manage a caucus that is bound to grow more restive.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, Ayanna Pressley and Jamaal Bowman never came close to seriously imperiling Ms. Pelosi’s speakership. ...

... Ms. Pelosi was the first female speaker of the House, a seminal political figure with an enormous fund-raising operation, the very personification of coastal liberalism. She frustrated the left, but also opposed the Iraq War, killed George W. Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security and was a critical force in shepherding the Affordable Care Act into law. She was adept, first and foremost, at uniting various factions of the Democratic Party and quelling dissent.

...
Mr. Jeffries, who began his career as a white-shoe corporate lawyer and later became a state assemblyman, was never a starry-eyed liberal. ...

Unlike the young leftists who rose to power in 2019, Mr. Jeffries is a staunch supporter of Israel and privately run, publicly funded charter schools. He clashed with progressives who backed defunding the police in the wake of the George Floyd protests. “There will never be a moment where I bend the knee to hard-left democratic socialism,” Mr. Jeffries said as recently as 2021.

 

[lpetrich]

Still more NYT.

One of the overlooked stories of the 2022 midterms was how many leftist or Squad-friendly candidates won elections. The old Justice Democrats strategy of contesting safe-blue seats is beginning to bear considerable fruit. Moderates are right that Democrats in the Bernie Sanders or Ilhan Omar vein have yet to prove they can win swing terrain — but they won’t have to to have tangible influence in Washington.

2018: AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar
2020: Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush
2022: Maxwell Frost, Becca Balint, Summer Lee, Greg Casar, Delia Ramirez

"But these Democrats may seek their own places on influential committees like Rules and hope, over time, to sap the power of the legislative leader and force more debate on the House floor."

If Ms. Pelosi could be dictatorial, she was savvy about heading off challenges. Mr. Jeffries would be wise to learn from her example. When Marcia Fudge, a longtime Ohio representative, was contemplating a run against Ms. Pelosi for the speakership, she restored a House elections subcommittee and named Ms. Fudge chair so she could pursue voting rights.

Mr. Jeffries could consider ways to placate a left wing that’s only getting stronger. ...

A longer-term question is: if and when Democrats find themselves back in the majority, will the Squad and any allies ever withhold votes from Mr. Jeffries? ...

Would the leftists force Mr. Jeffries to bring Medicare for All to the floor for a vote? Will they fight for more legislation to combat climate change? After years of relative deference to the Washington foreign policy establishment, will they demand far smaller Pentagon budgets or try to derail military aid to Israel?

 

[lpetrich]

Another progressive candidate: Michelle Vallejo is running again for TX-15, against Republican incumbent Monica De La Cruz, who defeated her last year.

Looking at Jamie McLeod-Skinner for Oregon it looks like she is running for office without stating which office she is running for. She defeated 14-year incumbent and Big-Pharma lackey Kurt Schrader in the Democratic primary last year, only to barely lose to Republican Lori Chavez-DeRemer in the general election.

Former Oregon Congressman Kurt Schrader Gets Job at Firm That Lobbies for Big Pharma

Six-term U.S. Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) lost the Democratic primary in 2022 in part because his opponent, Jamie McLeod-Skinner, painted him as a shill for the pharmaceutical industry

...
Last week, Schrader, 71, went to work for Williams & Jensen PLLC, a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm that does work for Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk (maker of Ozempic) and Pfizer, OpenSecrets says. Schrader took money from all of those companies during the 2022 election cycle, Federal Election Commission records show.

“I am thrilled to have the opportunity to join one of the most prominent and respected law and lobbying firms in D.C.,” Schrader said in a statement. “Williams & Jensen is known on the Hill for their strategic and policy acumen, and I look forward to working with them to bring thoughtful guidance to our clients.”

...
Schrader’s 2021 committee vote helped deep-six President Joe Biden’s plan to lower prescription drug prices by allowing Medicare to negotiate.

When he was defeated, he decided to fit JMLS's depiction of him as a lackey of Big Pharma. Something like Joe Crowley becoming a lobbyist after being defeated by AOC.

 

[lpetrich]

Mondaire Jones wants back in | Semafor - he's running for NY-17 again. Last year, as a result of redistricting, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney decided to run in the new NY-17, and MJ decided to flee that district for a possibly more hospitable one, NY-10. He lost rather miserably there, and he's now trying again in NY-17, though it was somewhat changed since redistricting.

SPM himself lost to Republican Mike Lawler.

Americana: What district do you expect to be running in? Are you assuming it’ll change or be changed before next November?

Mondaire Jones: I’m assuming that I will be running in the district as it’s presently drawn, and I fully intend to defeat Mike Lawler on his record. This is a district that woke up horrified to learn that its member of Congress is against the freedom to have an abortion; that he voted to gut the IRS, so that billionaires and corporations could more easily cheat on their taxes. He opposes an assault weapons ban; we here in suburbia are deeply concerned that our kids are getting gunned down in schools. He said that the FBI and the DOJ are politicized, without any evidence, following the indictment of Donald Trump by Jack Smith. There is nothing moderate about those positions.

Why the word "fascism"?

Mondaire Jones: This is a Republican Party seeking not only to assail the right to vote, but not to certify free and fair elections. Donald Trump is now saying he’s going to appoint people who are partial to him as the head of the FBI and the DOJ if he gets another term in the White House. And he’s called for jailing his political opponents. That is authoritarian behavior. That is fascism. I’m old enough to remember when people clutch their pearls when Joe Biden used that word last year. But he’s been vindicated.

Then saying that his district is "not a socially conservative district", that it is "highly educated", and that it "wants to see government work."

Why did Mike Lawler win?

Mondaire Jones: Mike is a career political operative who will tell you anything you want to hear. And he was running against a uniquely unpopular Democratic nominee who my constituents blamed for having pushed me out of my seat and for having created the redistricting nightmare in the state that we all experienced. There was a tremendous enthusiasm gap — to say nothing of what I think people in both parties here will tell you, which is that he didn’t show up to actually campaign the district.

Sean Patrick Maloney: how the DCCC chair bungled his own New York race. - Nov 14, 20225:52 AM - "Instead of taking his own race seriously, the DCCC chair snubbed grassroots support and went to Europe to court donors."

He was the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, so he ought to have been expert on campaigning. But he went the way of Joe Crowley, someone in the House Democratic leadership.

About people who wanted to expunge Donald Trump's impeachments, they are not "serious people", because one cannot undo an impeachment.

He also contrasting Democrats wanting to do things for the American people vs. Republicans doing things like investigating Hunter Biden.

He still wants to expand the Supreme Court, and he still supports Medicare for All. Yet, "It’s going to be hard to paint me as some radical, because my constituents know me to be pragmatic, and focused on results."

 

[Derec]

Mondaire Jones wants back in | Semafor - he's running for NY-17 again. Last year, as a result of redistricting, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney decided to run in the new NY-17,

Naturally so, as NY-17 is his home district.

Then came redistricting. The short version: New York Democrats drew a favorable gerrymander, Republicans sued and got it thrown out, a judge imposed a new map on the state, and Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney — without a “heads up” to his colleague — switched to run in Jones’ district.

Weigel is either misunderstanding or misrepresenting redistricting. When you redistrict a state, the old districts do not exist any more. Just because Jones used to represent old NY-17 does not mean the new NY-17 is "his district" or that he has some sort of right of first refusal.

and MJ decided to flee that district for a possibly more hospitable one, NY-10.

I do understand NY law does not require its Representatives to reside in the district they represent. But maybe it should. That would preclude district shopping like this. At least he'd have to buy a house there or something.
Most naturally, Jones should be running in NY-16. He is less radical than Bowman, Jones ousting him would be a net win for sanity in Congress.

He lost rather miserably there, and he's now trying again in NY-17, though it was somewhat changed since redistricting.

It completely changed, which means Jones would be running there for the first time.
The redistricting this time around was especially significant for NY, as they lost a district. That means that it would have been impossible to just whittle a bit around the edges of the boundaries; no, it required a significant change.

SPM himself lost to Republican Mike Lawler.

Why the word "fascism"?

It's a good cudgel against your political opponents.

Mondaire Jones: Mike is a career political operative who will tell you anything you want to hear. And he was running against a uniquely unpopular Democratic nominee who my constituents blamed for having pushed me out of my seat

First of all, it was not "his seat". The district that he had his seat in does not exist any more.
Second of all, he wasn't "pushed out", he still could have contested it.
Third, MJ ranting against SPM as well as the Alessadra Biaggi campaign damaged him. The fact that it was a midterm race where the incumbent party usually loses seats did not help him either. And it was close 49.3-48.7%. ML won by less than 2,500 votes!

I hope SPM comes back for a rematch.

and for having created the redistricting nightmare in the state that we all experienced.

Wasn't that the fault of the Dems in Albany who were too greedy and drew up an illegally gerrymandered map?

He was the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, so he ought to have been expert on campaigning. But he went the way of Joe Crowley, someone in the House Democratic leadership.

And for similar reasons - he wasn't far left enough for the fauxgressives. They could not replace him with a AOC-style candidate, so they stayed home, delivering the election for the Republican.

He still wants to expand the Supreme Court, and he still supports Medicare for All. Yet, "It’s going to be hard to paint me as some radical, because my constituents know me to be pragmatic, and focused on results."

Those are pretty radical proposals, esp. wanting to pack the Court because some of their recent decisions did not go his way.

 

[Derec]

When he was defeated, he decided to fit JMLS's depiction of him as a lackey of Big Pharma. Something like Joe Crowley becoming a lobbyist after being defeated by AOC.

Do you really think that if AOC were defeated she would not start working for some left-wing lobby group or "think tank"? She certainly would not go back to bartending ...